Wednesday, October 10, 2012

"A Jewish perspective on same-sex marriage" by Jonathan Romain

by Jonathan
Romain published inThe Independent. Tuesday
October 9, 2012

From a Jewish
Perspective, it is hard to see why anyone religious can be against same-sex
marriage without being accused of acute hypocrisy.

Christians might quote
the Bible and the verse in Leviticus 18.22 which declares ‘You shall not lie
with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination’ or go a few chapters on where
it is not only repeated, but in even stronger terms, and the death penalty is
laid down for all practitioners (20.13).

However, despite those
who piously cite Scripture, they have no problem ignoring other verses in the
same sacred book. For instance, about circumcising their male children,
abstaining from pork or prawns, and not wearing garments in which wool &
linen is mixed.

Those who conveniently
overlook those commands but still object to homosexuality, are just doing a
pick and mix job with the Bible, and are driven not by religious beliefs but by
anti-gay prejudice.

As for Jews who take
all of the Hebrew Bible seriously, there are three choices when approaching the
verses on gays.

Some stick to the
literal text, but that causes a major problem when they come up against real
live people who are both gay and religious, whose lives defy the Bible and who
simply cannot be dismissed as abominable.

Others drasticly
reinterpret the text, claiming that the ban on homosexual activity should be
read with regard to heterosexuals: that they should not engage in homosexual
relationships.

Thus heterosexuals
should stick to their practices, homosexuals to theirs, and everyone do what is
natural to them, but not engage in other types of sexual practices for the sake
of experimentation.

This may appear to be
twisting the biblical verse, but it is a genuine attempt to wrestle with a
sacred text, work within the Bible and find meaning for today.

The Bible is not the
literal word of God, but the inspiration of God, as perceived by people of that
era and subject to the limitations of the period. It therefore has to
constantly adapt according to new knowledge and new insights.

The third - and, to my mind, best - option is to say that the Bible is not the
literal word of God (and thus cannot be changed), but is the inspiration of
God, as perceived by people of that era and subject to the limitations of the
period. It therefore has to constantly adapt according to new knowledge and new
insights.

Revelation was not a
one-off, never to be repeated, but instead there is the concept of Progressive
Revelation; each generation seeking to understand the will of God for its own time.

A modern Jewish
approach would therefore endorse the view that homosexuality is not a
perversion but a natural orientation. Moreover, if we regard all humanity as
creatures of God, then God not only made some people male and some female
(Genesis 1.27) , but also some heterosexual and some homosexual. Gay people are
created gay by God.

If this is the case,
then certain consequences follow: one is complete equality for gay people, not
just in a negative sense of being free from discrimination, but in having
positive rights, be it pensions, marriage or divorce. It is a matter of equity.
Equity is not just a secular value, but a very important religious value and
needs to be reclaimed as such.

Another consequence is
that the term ‘marriage’ and the concept of marriage does not belong
exclusively to heterosexuals; they may have had it first and for a long time,
but that does not give them sole claim on it. It would be just as ridiculous to
restrict the right to vote to men because it used to belong solely to them
(and, originally, only to men who were property-owners).

If we believe that
marriage is a good vehicle for stability – both for the couple themselves and
for society at large - then why should it be limited to heterosexuals?

It is also important
to dispel two spurious arguments against gay marriage. Firstly, that marriage
is associated in many religious mindsets with children. That is certainly true,
but ‘associated with’ is not the same as ‘dependent on’ – otherwise ministers
of all faiths would have to refuse to officiate at ceremonies in which a young
couple had already decided not to have children, or were unable to have any for
medical reasons. We would also have the embarrassing task of asking brides who
were 40-something whether they had gone through menopause yet.

Secondly, nothing is
more ridiculous than claims that permitting gay marriage would destroy family
life or marriage in general. What gay people do or do not do will have no
effect on whether heterosexuals marry, live-together, have children, have
affairs, fall-out, get divorced, or remarry.

Those who feel that
society will be undermined by gay marriage are really saying that they
personally feel threatened by it. It is certainly true that heterosexuals can
feel uncomfortable with homosexuality, but that is largely habit and
conditioning, and should have no bearing on how society reacts or legislation
is framed.

I cannot believe in a
God who creates both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and would then want us to
deny either the right to seek marital fulfillment. It is neither fair, nor
religious.

Independent Voices has
launched a campaign to legalise same-sex marriage. To read more about our Equal
Partners campaign and sign the petition, clickhere.

Total Pageviews

A MUST READ

Beit Hillel organization publishes edict declaring homosexuals can fulfill community duties, should not be excluded! BY STUART WINER A...

SEARCH for specific content on Website

Mission of Website

"My goal is to provide a safe place to find resources for individuals struggling with being gay and Jewish, along with the many out there struggling to understand. In addition, we are focusing on modern Jewish issues, Jewish learning, and Sephardic Judaism."